G7....War declared

Vauban wrote:It is Austria's view the Duchy of Krakow is a vacant title, hence the effort to install a Hapsburg favourite. If there is already a Grand Duke, then Austria has been misinformed and something was lost in translation!

Thank you Vauban ... hopefully this will be clarified next turn.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
2) Speaking as someone who has won the Czar's we sink ships trophy more than most unless you have loads of Navy ships assigned too helping trade in an area the vast majority of merchant ship losses do not show up on your sheet.

Actual immediate result of a lost ship is a £4,000 reduction in your end of year trade income from the area of the loss so last months loss of 126 ships by last months we sink ships award will be a £504,000 reduction in end of year trade revenue.

If such losses continue for a long time is that other possible effect which may differ with positions is that a positions economic health may suffer a reduction as shipping and insurance costs go up due to the losses and industries are starved of raw materials.  Though I have noted that the economic health of traditional trade powers like Venice, England and UDP seem to suffer more from this than basically farming positions.

It is also possible that Blockades do more damage to Economic health than privateering and a lot will depend on which port is being blockaded and how many Ports a position has.  So Venice seems to be very sensitive to Venice being blockaded since its generally the positions only main Port.  Such Blockades also hurt a positions income from customs duty (tax on foreigners).

Spains income from customs duty in G7 is so flipping low (think we have an honesty box at end of pier and someone has thrown a shipping net over it) that its hard to imagine Madrid will even notice this but some positions which relied a lot on transit incomes/customs duties could be hit hard.  Played a small Rhineland position once and over a 1/3 of positions income came from this source so a blockade of the Rhine would be really bad news.

The other question I think the Court of Public Opinion is still out on is does Mercantilism or "Colbertism" as practiced with much dedication by the Shah of Persia help your trade and economic health?  As Persia has taken out trade rivals and gained lots of really cheap ships and cargo.  Not 100% sure but while the Shah may have wiped out one rival (France) in the Indian trade zone is Persia actually doing better as a trade power because of this?  As opposed to just being above France on the trade table?  

I think it is hard to draw general conclusions.  When I was Venice (briefly in one game) a blockade of the Adriatic would undoubtedly have caused major problems, but that could have been because Venice was a major trading hub, a port through which goods were landed and then shipped on to other destinations.  Stuart's point about a blockade of the Rhine hitting trade from a Rhineland position would therefore be likely to hold in that case.  However, I don't think it would hold in the case of any blockade of London simply because goods could be diverted to any number of south coast ports and merchant ships use them instead (or even to Bristol, Hull or any number of other ports for exports).

I certainly haven't noticed any reduction in EH from merchant shipping losses in the Indian trade zone - EH actually rose this turn.  And I don't think there was any reduction during the last war with Spain in the Mercantile trade zone.  Where a blockade is more likely to be effective is where trade cannot be rerouted or there is severe disruption, e.g. at the entrance to the Med.

It is difficult to judge the effect of the orders we give simply because EH is on a scale of 1-10, and varies inversely with honour which to the upside can have some crazy numbers.  If think originally there was a note in the rulebook which said something like if your honour was above 6 then you were considered popular, and if it was above 10, you were applauded in the streets?  Not that you could go into the streets to enjoy it without losing honour since kings didn't tend to mix with the people.  It also used to be the case that when honour rose EH fell, but I think in practice it was not so straight forward as throw a ball (honour +1, economy -1), or build canals (economy +1, honour -1).  So although the tables can help provide players with a rough idea of how they are doing in those specific terms relative to others, it is hard to estimate precisely why or how much higher their score needs to be to get above their rival on a particular table.  The honour table seems to be vulnerable in some senses with once played (now inactive) nations sitting there almost forever.  An interesting twist could be if every nation (played and unplayed) found their honour reduced by 1 every few months, so simply to maintain your position on the table you would have to submit an order to try and increase it somehow.  As for the trade tables, given Spain's dominance of nearly every area (closely followed by Russia), the top spots are meaningless for most players looking to make a marginal improvement.  In this month's Europe trade listing, for example, the table runs: Spain (1), France (2), Austria (3), Russia (4), Sweden (5), Bavaria (6), Prussia-Brandenburg (7), Persia ( 8 ), Pfalz (9), Hesse-Kassel (10).  Pfalz is very much a Rhineland state which depends on the transit trade, so as the overall volume of trade through the HRE to Flanders increases, so should Pfalz's trade income.  Yet Persia's European trade is higher?  I suspect the first 4 positions on the table have trade worth many millions in this region alone.  Arithmetically it will be very difficult for them to be caught up by the smaller nations, unless (like RDW/RDE) they are using money given to them by a more wealthy player to help grow their economy.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
3) Ref the rules changes have always used 1 supply patrol per Army but may now have to either move some barges or grain so they are in same place.  I swear that with Cowards like Tesse and multi layer fortress defenses this game is more and more about logistics and engineering and less and less about dashing cavalry charges and flashing blades.

I always thought it was a case of 1 supply patrol per army, but perhaps it is complicated by moving formations 'together'.  On the asset list it is not always clear what counts as a formation when regiments are named/numbered.  It isn't dependent upon whether they have a named commander, since at times I have asked an (unnamed) officer from a particular regiment to meet with an enemy commander - he then appears as a named officer on the lists for administrative convenience.  When I merge forces together the old formation name often remains, and at a later time I might decide to send that formation scouting ahead or to garrison a town captured en route.  Does such a formation use a single lot of supplies/single patrol or require multiple ones?  It isn't always easy to know, then you suddenly find SL shooting up.  

Also formations which carry grain with them do not always eat the grain they have, whereas I thought the rule usually was that they would eat the grain that is with them in preference to any that had to be supplied.  I had the ridiculous situation once when I had lost nearly all the troops from starvation in an army which had been stockpiling supplies (and had 3 different lots of thousands of tons of grain with it), ignoring orders to eat the grain they had with them!  Such common sense seemed to be missing from that particular army, even though the rules once said something to the equivalent that units like TW can be assumed to be on the lookout for criminal behaviour without being ordered to do so every month.  In this particular example I am referring to, in the end individual army commanders survived (still with the grain noted as being with them as part of their formation, even though the formation had ceased to exist).  Perhaps it is the way I write orders, but it does seem strange that although most game mechanics are simplified, logistics seems to be a perennial problem.  The patrol system should be a simplification, but so should armies taking grain with them?  Both seem open to difficulties.

Wrote. Stuart Bailey.

3) Ref the rules changes have always used 1 supply patrol per Army but may now have to either move some barges or grain so they are in same place. I swear that with Cowards like Tesse and multi layer fortress defenses this game is more and more about logistics and engineering and less and less about dashing cavalry charges and flashing blades.

Exactly what I think and have said for a while now. Honour gets wacked in wars as well. Even if you do well in the war.

jamesbond007 wrote:Wrote. Stuart Bailey.

3) Ref the rules changes have always used 1 supply patrol per Army but may now have to either move some barges or grain so they are in same place.  I swear that with Cowards like Tesse and multi layer fortress defenses this game is more and more about logistics and engineering and less and less about dashing cavalry charges and flashing blades.

Exactly what I think and have said for a while now. Honour gets wacked in wars as well. Even if you do well in the war.

Ref the subject of how wars effect your honour score in G2 my honour score got battered for fighting a Ottoman Civil War - even though in my humble opinion the other side started it.

While when the very dodgy Pasha of Egypt got caught out in various dubious deeds and caused a Bourbon lead invasion of the Ottoman Empire which forced my character to try and defend its unity from Papist invaders my honour score went through the roof.

Currently in G7 the Shah of Persia who has waged a decade long Jihad is number three on honour list while the peacefull Ottoman Sultan is no where.

Meanwhile the evil and wicked Uncle Louis who keeps launching invasions of the Holy Roman Empire and stealing the lands of his neices in Savoy and Lorraine in particular has dropped off the honour table. Wihile the Emperor and Spain who are leading the fight back and attempt to free the Duke of Savoy etc from French captivity etc seem to have honour scores which are going up.

So it would seem its not so simple as:- Going to War = Lost honour. Think its more a case of who you are fighting and why. Which is clearly going to differ between positions.

I also suspect that some positions have a built in biase towards War or Peace with some positions having a nobility keen to muster round the flag and win honour and Glori. While other positions have an attack of the vapours at the thought of the enonomic cost.

On top of that comes comes results but even here its not as simple as win = Honour goes up. Defeat = Honour goes down.

A lot also would depend on the skill of your opponent in any war.

Some opponents would write nothing in the newspaper. Others would carefully and critically attack the ruler of the other position. A good example of this would be in g10. The recent war between France and Austria. Where one position did next to nothing and the other position worked very hard diplomatically and in the newspaper.

jamesbond007 wrote:A lot also would depend on the skill of your opponent in any war.

Some opponents would write nothing in the newspaper. Others would carefully and critically attack the ruler of the other position. A good example of this would be in g10. The recent war between France and Austria. Where one position did next to nothing and the other position worked very hard diplomatically and in the newspaper.

Generally agree with the above but my experience is that a lot depends on who is attacking who in the press. A word of criticism from the Pope has a bad effect on French or Austrian honour or any other Catholic position for that matter. But even a full page Papal attack on the Ottomans, Russians or Protestants is likely to be positive for their standing.

Experience in G2 in which Rumelia was called all the things under the sun by hordes of Papists was that this had zero effect on Rumelian honour but seemed to increase theirs and vis versa. While propaganda attacks from fellow Ottomans could really hurt.

G7 has like G10 also featured a conflict between the Hapsburgs and Bourbon France. Both Catholic powers who may be expected to show at least some respect for the other side but also historic foes. Think its probably fair to say that some damage has been done but not by just making stuff up. It has to be based on the actual ill deeds of your rival.

The Bailey theory of Propaganda in Agema is not too say anything which may hurt a actual players feelings but be so over the top that everyone including the player who is the target can just laugh it off. Call someone a "idiot" and they can take this personally, call someone character the "anti-Christ" and the "Great Whore of Babylon" and they are less likely to be offended in real life.

Also I mostly aim for positive effect on own side rather than so try and damage the other side.

July 1717 newspaper has now arrived and as is usual in G7 writeups, the first thing to check is that there have been no Russian shipping losses.  Other losses of merchant shipping include 32French, 39Spanish, 88English, which means England is the winner of this month’s Our Ship’s Sank Trophy.  

1. The Shah seems most pleased that his sailors are able to destroy unarmed merchants and has declared that given the distance the Royal Navy has to travel (which will impact the ability to repair, supply and respond tactically) the advantage lies with the Persians.  Indeed, so confident is he that he has withdrawn 94SoL, 90cruisers and 20ketches from off Socotra, leaving 90SoL and 50 transports on blockade.  Perhaps he has forgotten that the Royal Navy is well used to fighting in every region of the world and in difficult circumstances, including against Stuart, the player who has repeatedly proved his superior ability with logistics?  Taking unarmed liners is easy; it is a different matter when your enemy starts firing back.

2. There has been a very interesting writeup of developments outside Bayonne between French defenders and Spanish attackers.  The highly organised Spanish forces used some innovative tactics to conduct a siege against this heavily fortified town while being harassed by a large French army.  By the end of the month the Spanish had breached the retracement works from the south east, killed 660 civilians and destroyed a granary.  Morale inside the town may be fairly low since another 500 civilians quit the town to seek the protection of the French army deployed to the north.  Spanish forces are divided into those commanded by Spinola (10 Miquelet light infantry, 60H, 9D) which won an engagement with 66 French horse; and a further  60H, 8Hussars, 12HA, 16F (troops which had fought against the Jacobites in Scotland, displaying what passes for their battle honours which are disputed) and 30FA.  French forces comprise 51F, 116H, 39FA.  The size of the garrison in Bayonne is unknown and it can be assumed that the Spanish have additional infantry not mentioned.  What happens next is anyone’s guess.  The numbers are roughly equal in terms of cavalry, but since the Spanish cavalry has already forced the French to retire back to their main army, I suspect the Spanish are now high morale and French low morale, which would seem to give the Spanish a slight advantage.  The French outnumber them in Field artillery, but the Spanish do have some galloper artillery which could give them the edge against infantry.  France does seem to have an advantage in infantry numbers and if they attack to save Bayonne, I suspect the Spanish will withdraw, covered by their cavalry.  Of course if there are hidden numbers of Spanish infantry out there then they could just press ahead and try to storm the town, leaving their cavalry to hold off a French attack and just hope the French defenders give up.  From the known composition of forces, it does not appear that the Spanish expected to have to fight a battle, just a quick siege and the arrival of the French army was a surprise.  Still, if the French repeat what they did at Perpignan, they could well withdraw themselves, perhaps after having increased the garrison size and ensured the city is well supplied.  This could develop into a very interesting fight.

Meanwhile at Perpignan the Spanish mortars destroyed a school as 2 Miquelet light infantry battalions reoccupied some trenches and then 16SA tried to use ricochet fire which was ineffective.  This rather long siege does not seem to be making progress.  

3. At Versailles, King Louis has issued a justification for his temporary occupation of Lorraine and insisted the Austrians declare war on him.  They obliged.  And just in case this didn’t make the papers, the Austrians sent an army of 38F, 50H, 30Art and lots of baggage into Strassburg.

4. Meanwhile in London the Austrian ambassador has happily explained the situation with Krakov; the Polish ambassador had a slightly different view, but it is believed a settlement may be proposed this month.  The Duke of Ormonde, who has little patience for music, seemed rather preoccupied with his military duties, which could explain why he didn’t make the Royal cricket team.

5. In Minsk, the Tsar has presented a proposal to end his war with Poland.  In an interesting twist, the Byzantine-rite Catholic Uniate Church is prepared to support the proposals provided the Tsar also builds churches for them, thus preserving the ability of Catholics to worship as well as Orthodox.

6. The investigation into the fire at the Charlottenborg Palace in Copenhagen which claimed the lives of the Danish royal family, seems to have reached a dead end without revealing either the cause or motives of those involved.  This is most unsatisfactory for everyone, not least Jacobite Naval Intelligence, who are concerned about a future attempt on the life of Princess Anne.  The Kalmar Union would appear to be dissolving into the Kalmar Disunion and King Charles may need to get back with his army to restore order.

7. The rather elderly Cardinal Alphonso, Bishop of Madrid, Spanish ambassador to the Papal States and general anti-Jacobite cheerleader has died in his sleep, his claim to fame being his mattress, stuffed with receipts from interest-free loans to pro-Spanish clergy to help them buy church offices in the Papacy.  Will his death mean those loans must be repaid or will the next Spanish ambassador simply continue this policy of corruption?

8. Finally, and much to my annoyance, a map has appeared of Spanish possessions in the Mediterranean, showing Ceuta as Spanish!  I would like to remind readers that in G7 Ceuta was ceded by Spain to England as a result of the last war; Spain even went to the trouble of removing all Spanish civilians from the town, which is now home to English settlers and a substantial number of English soldiers and sailors.  It was originally called Sabtah (Romanised from the Arabic) and renamed Ceuta by the Spanish.  Jacobite Naval Intelligence is of the opinion that the practice of renaming captured towns tends to cause confusion, but if it is necessary to ensure newly-published maps are updated then perhaps King James should rename the town?  Historically Mount Hacho (the citadel of Ceuta) was considered one of the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar being the other).  Perhaps some variation on this would be an appropriate new name?  Sensible suggestions are invited.

Ref Papa Clement comments above can I just add:

1) While it makes no difference to the winner of this month’s Our Ship’s Sank Trophy. It should be noted that Polish Cossacks are busy burning Swedish, Danish, Austrian and Russian trade convoys in the Polish Ukraine and beating the drivers. While such losses do not show up with Lloyds and other maritime underwriters or win any famous awards such losses do have same effect on trade profits as lost merchant ships.

As well as the 32 lost merchant ships the French also lost another 3 warships and another 5 got damaged while protecting French merchant ships. This has been a general theme of this war to date that the Spanish Navy has won almost all of the actions at sea were the opposition shot back. Mostly because on average Spanish light ships carry more and larger guns than their French opposite numbers.

Indeed so marked has this run of French Naval defeats been that in Marseilles junior officers are asking their Admiral to take the main French fleet too sea. Not sure if lineships will do much good in the conflict currently being fought but they could blockade the bases of Spanish corsairs and even bring on a battle between the main fleets of Spain and France which could be "interesting".

2) Have to say I broadly agree with what the Shah said to try and boast the morale of the Persian Navy ahead of its war with the English. The English will be at the ends of very long lines of communication and reinforcement from their home bases. Assume supply and repair more even and not really a big problem for the English due to bases in India unless their are engaged towards the end of long voyage round the Cape of Good Hope before they can repair. Question really comes down too will the superior ability of "crack" English crews make up for their disadvantages?

3) If anyone is thinking why are the Hapsburgs taking so long to reduce a couple of small French frontier towns while in the same amount of time the French Army has taken over the whole of Savoy and Lorraine. Can I just say I am as confused as you are about the sudden inability of Agema NPC's to put up a fight against the French.

However if anyone whats to take notes for how to plan their own defences the French on the southern frontier have adopted a triple layer defence of frontier patrols to warn of any advance, strong frontier fortresses and then field armies held in 2nd line of fortresses ready to bugger up any siege and probably stamp any force which looks like its suffering high sickness due to siege into the dirt. Meanwhile Frontier fortress defences also in triple layers of outworks, main defensive live and a citadel plus a couple of wet ditches all held by garrison of up too 16F and 300 FC2 and some Dragoons. Hell a lot of these French garrisons are larger than the population of the town, in fact they seem to have more artillery than some players whole positions!

Result has been something like the old TV series the "Flashing Blade" with masses of Spanish heavy artillery pounding what Spanish HQ refers to as a target rich environment in attempt to weaken the defenders and probably not push home before the relief force is defeated. Live in hope of a magazine explosion but no such luck so far, have however hit grain stores and also hope that for every civilian the garrison also suffers same or more losses since they outnumber the civilian population.

4) Would also like to complain about fact that all French cities seem to be on rivers so its impossible to cut them off from the north and relief without fighting with a river at your back. Ok in summer such rivers are not major problems for foot and Cavalry but blowed if I am going to try and withdraw by state of the art and very expensive artillery across some ford with the local version of the Perpignan front row in full rampage. Hay some of us fight in Agema cames with first of objective in mind of the "clear get away" .............you can take the boy out of the Ottoman Empire, but can you take the Ottoman out of the boy?

5) I thought the HRE and its Princes were already at war with Louis XIV over Savoy. But it seems we need a new vote to make it over Lorraine as well and for some reason Louis wants it confirmed that the war is not just limited to Italy. Which seems a odd request when he has already invaded Lorraine and is fighting at sea and in the south of France.

As well as Strassbourg Imperial troops have started to arrive in Milan were they have been welcomed with 100 gun salutes, and a ball for the officers with music by Antonio Maria Bernacchi of La Scala Opera. Very civilized bunch us Hapsburg defenders of peace, justice, goats and mums apple struddle from the dastardly land grabbing and bridegroom napping frog.

Flanders envoy at Imperial diet has put forward proposal to say war is declared for recovery of all Imperial lands otherwise by the time vote passed to cover Lorraine, Louis will probably have invaded some other Imperial territory.

6) As well as social events at Versailles and London. Plenty in Madrid and Moscow as the great and good gather to fix problems caused by poor harvests and in St Petersburg bask in the glory of saving the day. In Spain they we too busy saying nasty things about the French and preyers for poor Duke Leopold of Lorraine to worry much about 3m tons of grain given to needy communities esp when another 20m tons was going to help feed livestock and 20m tons to brewers and distillers.

Other news which the above comments from Papa missed which may be important to some:

7) The Crown Prince of Portugal is to marry the heiress of Austria next month. Will not have an effect probably for decades or ever if the Emperor has a son but in theory the fruit of such a Union will inherit both the Portugese Empire and Austria. Can hardly believe that Louis XIV has not invaded Portugal.

The Prince of Orange has stood for election to the currently vacant post of Grand Pensionary of Holland. Provided the Prince of Orange does not try and marry anyone he is probably just about safe from the French hordes too his south.

9) Finally in Africa Walata has converted to Shia Islam. Not sure where Walta is but these Persian missionaries seem to be everywhere.

Also in Africa the Kulmar Union governor of East Africa has been warmly welcomed by Turkish and Arab Slave Traders. Same traders who King James has declared a Crusade against for trading in Christian Slaves? Swedes are not that bad slaves may even be glad to be purchased by the Swedes as better option than being put onto Russian vessels and settled in Siberia. A possible fete which has no doubt inspired many to convert to Shia Islam instead.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref Papa Clement comments above can I just add:

1) While it makes no difference to the winner of this month’s Our Ship’s Sank Trophy.  It should be noted that Polish Cossacks are busy burning Swedish, Danish, Austrian and Russian trade convoys in the Polish Ukraine and beating the drivers.  While such losses do not show up with Lloyds and other maritime underwriters or win any famous awards such losses do have same effect on trade profits as lost merchant ships.

As well as the 32 lost merchant ships the French also lost another 3 warships and another 5 got damaged while protecting French merchant ships.  This has been a general theme of this war to date that the Spanish Navy has won almost all of the actions at sea were the opposition shot back.  Mostly because on average Spanish light ships carry more and larger guns than their French opposite numbers.

Indeed so marked has this run of French Naval defeats been that in Marseilles junior officers are asking their Admiral to take the main French fleet too sea.  Not sure if lineships will do much good in the conflict currently being fought but they could blockade the bases of Spanish corsairs and even bring on a battle between the main fleets of Spain and France which could be "interesting"

I'm not sure raids on caravans or land convoys have quite the same impact as merchant shipping losses, but I appreciate that given real world constraints I did miss a few bits out of my writeup, so thanks to Stuart for correcting this.

Stuart Bailey wrote:2) Have to say I broadly agree with what the Shah said to try and boast the morale of the Persian Navy ahead of its war with the English.  The English will be at the ends of very long lines of communication and reinforcement from their home bases.  Assume supply and repair more even and not really a big problem for the English due to bases in India unless their are engaged towards the end of long voyage round the Cape of Good Hope before they can repair.  Question really comes down too will the superior ability of "crack" English crews make up for their disadvantages?

You would not expect me to comment further on this other than to disagree with the observations.  What will be interesting is how the new supply rules will affect fighting in different areas.  I'm not overly concerned in respect of naval operations, but it could make it much more difficult to conduct sieges.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
3) If anyone is thinking why are the Hapsburgs taking so long to reduce a couple of small French frontier towns while in the same amount of time the French Army has taken over the whole of Savoy and Lorraine.  Can I just say I am as confused as you are about the sudden inability of Agema NPC's to put up a fight against the French.

However if anyone wants to take notes for how to plan their own defences the French on the southern frontier have adopted a triple layer defence of frontier patrols to warn of any advance, strong frontier fortresses and then field armies held in 2nd line of fortresses ready to bugger up any siege and probably stamp any force which looks like its suffering high sickness due to siege into the dirt.  Meanwhile Frontier fortress defences also in triple layers of outworks, main defensive live and a citadel plus a couple of wet ditches all held by garrison of up too 16F and 300 FC and some Dragoons.  Hell a lot of these French garrisons are larger than the population of the town, in fact they seem to have more artillery than some players whole positions!

Result has been something like the old TV series the "Flashing Blade" with masses of Spanish heavy artillery pounding what Spanish HQ refers to as a target rich environment in attempt to weaken the defenders and probably not push home before the relief force is defeated.  Live in hope of a magazine explosion but no such luck so far,  have however hit grain stores and also hope that for every civilian the garrison also suffers same or more losses since they outnumber the civilian population.

The casualties do seem to be a bit biased towards the civilian populations, however does it not say in the rules that mortars are indiscriminate and their use was discouraged by honourable commanders because of their propensity to hit civilian targets?

Stuart Bailey wrote:4) Would also like to complain about fact that all French cities seem to be on rivers so its impossible to cut them off from the north and relief without fighting with a river at your back.  Ok in summer such rivers are not major problems for foot and Cavalry but blowed if I am going to try and withdraw by state of the art and very expensive artillery across some ford with the local version of the Perpignan front row in full rampage.  Hay some of us fight in Agema games with first of objective in mind of the "clear get away" .............you can take the boy out of the Ottoman Empire, but can you take the Ottoman out of the boy?

The number of times you've invaded France, Stuart, and only now you complain about towns being on rivers?

Stuart Bailey wrote:5) I thought the HRE and its Princes were already at war with Louis XIV over Savoy.  But it seems we need a new vote to make it over Lorraine as well and for some reason Louis wants it confirmed that the war is not just limited to Italy.  Which seems a odd request when he has already invaded Lorraine and is fighting at sea and in the south of France.

As well as Strassbourg Imperial troops have started to arrive in Milan were they have been welcomed with 100 gun salutes, and a ball for the officers with music by Antonio Maria Bernacchi of La Scala Opera.  Very civilized bunch us Hapsburg defenders of peace, justice, goats and mums apple struddle from the dastardly land grabbing and bridegroom napping frog.

Flanders envoy at Imperial diet has put forward proposal to say war is declared for recovery of all Imperial lands otherwise by the time vote passed to cover Lorraine, Louis will probably have invaded some other Imperial territory.

JFlower is the one who understand HRE politics and institutions the best - I won't even try to begin to fathom the legal nitpicking.  I'm almost beginning to have some sympathy with Austria for the effort required to get a few hundred recruits out of these tiny principalities who are far more interested in procedure and delaying what the Emperor is trying to do.

Stuart Bailey wrote:6) As well as social events at Versailles and London.  Plenty in Madrid and Moscow as the great and good gather to fix problems caused by poor harvests and in St Petersburg bask in the glory of saving the day.  In Spain they we too busy saying nasty things about the French and preyers for poor Duke Leopold of Lorraine to worry much about 3m tons of grain given to needy communities esp when another 20m tons was going to help feed livestock and 20m tons to brewers and distillers.

Other news which the above comments from Papa missed which may be important to some:

7) The Crown Prince of Portugal is to marry the heiress of Austria next month.  Will not have an effect probably for decades or ever if the Emperor has a son but in theory the fruit of such a Union will inherit both the Portugese Empire and Austria.  Can hardly believe that Louis XIV has not invaded Portugal.

8 ) The Prince of Orange has stood for election to the currently vacant post of Grand Pensionary of Holland.  Provided the Prince of Orange does not try and marry anyone he is probably just about safe from the French hordes too his south.

9) Finally in Africa Walata has converted to Shia Islam.  Not sure where Walta is but these Persian missionaries seem to be everywhere.

Also in Africa the Kulmar Union governor of East Africa has been warmly welcomed by Turkish and Arab Slave Traders.  Same traders who King James has declared a Crusade against for trading in Christian Slaves?  Swedes are not that bad slaves may even be glad to be purchased by the Swedes as better option than being put onto Russian vessels and settled in Siberia.  A possible fete which has no doubt inspired many to convert to Shia Islam instead.  

I had to look it up, but Walata is in Mauritania - situated on a trans-Saharan trade route, West of Timbuktu.  The alternative spelling is Oualata.  I think the Shah has been quite clever developing his interest in this part of Africa.  While most players would have tried to conquer the Asante, the Shah has concentrated on the inland desert trade routes which will cut off the Asante's commercial lifeline (trans-Saharan trade) ... salt, gold, ivory, which should help him establish control of important trading products.

In 1700 (in the game) several European positions had colonies (really colonial trading posts) on the coast in Asante territory (and I think Prussia and Russia Dept West also established a presence), but none have been interested enough to try to press inland to conquer the Asante Union and control the trade themselves.  I may be wrong about this, but I think I was the first player to try the Asante and it is a fascinating position for those who are interested in Africa.  Within a relatively short space of time I was able to unite the tribes and triple my recruit base, then unfortunately that particular game folded.  Geographically it is one of those strange countries where the natives actually have an advantage over traditional European troops, so although you can only have bows and arrows, spears and shields, you can build a strong position and basically hold European traders to ransom by refusing to supply them if they start getting awkward.  I'm not sure how much further I would have been able to expand if the game had continued, but it is one of those unusual countries which players don't always consider.

Papa Clement wrote:

The number of times you've invaded France, Stuart, and only now you complain about towns being on rivers?

I had to look it up, but Walata is in Mauritania - situated on a trans-Saharan trade route, West of Timbuktu.  The alternative spelling is Oualata.  I think the Shah has been quite clever developing his interest in this part of Africa.  While most players would have tried to conquer the Asante, the Shah has concentrated on the inland desert trade routes which will cut off the Asante's commercial lifeline (trans-Saharan trade) ... salt, gold, ivory, which should help him establish control of important trading products.

Wow so that means the Shah and his merry bunch of missionaries have won converts in Madagascar off the south west coast of Africa one month and the next they have almost reached the Atlantic and the north east coast. They seem to be getting everywhere.........Africa, India, Ottoman Empire and central asia is riddled with them. Though oddly they have not showed up in China yet to compete with the Jesuits and probably suffer ritual humiliation and bits being cut off.

How have other players done with missionary work?

My version of Cardinal Portocarrero has printed lots of bibles including foreign language bibles and sent some missionaries to Africa but no reports on their progress at all...........hope they have not been eat. Basically have enough trouble training Priests and building schools for the Spanish Empire to consider doing much of the same for others. Though I did agree to fund Catholic schools for the Irish, Scots and English to help win these barbarians back for Holy Mother Church.

Can confirm that my single great effort at funding missionary work and spreading the counter reformation had ZERO influence on Spanish honour. So its back to the tried and tested method of helping Spanish honour.......fighting to save the freedoms and liberty of the Princes of Europe from the dastardly frog.

Ref Spanish invasions of France and rivers. Can I just point out that the first time I invaded France vast majority of the French Army was already either involved in an invasion of the British Isles or fighting Charles Hapsburgs dear old Dad in the east so huge relief armies were not really an issue and sieges could be conducted without having to look over your shoulder all the time.

The second time I invaded France after they declared war on Austria, Spain and the UDP the second out treaty expired the French covering Army in the south engaged prior to the Siege and got smashed allowing Siege to be conducted without concern about relief forces. After that the French Army tended to concentrate in massive strength on one front at a time. So other fronts could conduct sieges without problems while the heavily engaged front retired rapidly if they were wise (no one is saying dear old Leopold was wise, brave yes, stupidly so?).

Also since the 1st and 2nd times the French have been adding horn works, crown works and every other type of fancy and expensive work extended work you care to name to their fortresses. Not a great move for everyone since you then need much larger garrisons but provided this is done its going to greatly add to the length of a siege. Which allows a much higher chance of a relief Army showing up before the place falls.

If all you are worried about is the garrison then unless its basically Army size then rivers and division of the attacking force is not really a problem. Unless trying to take a really large city like London, Paris or Budapest in which case it may have to be taken in bits as defenders retire to north bank of say the Thames and blow the bridges. Real bugger of trying to take cities split by a river is when a relief Army shows up or is likely too.

Too cut the whole city off from supplies etc you need to cover all the gates but to do this the besiegers are going to end up split by a river. Which is standing invite to relief Army to attack one section of your siege lines and push said section of besiegers into a river. Which was always my Ottoman plan for Belgrade but for some reason no one came near the place, clearly not fans of wild water swiming in the Danube.

More minor French rivers not really a problem like the Danube esp in summer and easy enough for Cavalry to wade or swim and for foot to cross at fords. But blowed if you want to cross artillery in a rush.

For players interested in the theory of how to protect their siege from outside interference, two main tactics both of which were used in the WSS period. First and older tactic is to build very strong outward facing lines as well as the siege lines so any Army of relief is itself attacking a fortified position. This however needs time and manpower to prepare as you are defending a much larger area than the inner siege works.

Other tactic is to have a "Army of observation" seperate to the siege force standing ready to block and even give battle too the relief Army. Or you can do a mixture perhaps only seeking to delay and weaken any relief force before it tries to break your siege.

Bayonne in G7 has seen a bit of a mixture in that very rapid advance of French Army from the north buggered Spanish plan to build strong defensive lines all around the place. But Spanish delaying tactics and scouts were able to gain 7th Army enough time to move and face the threat.

French general now has interesting choice, he has sort of broken the siege and can re-supply and reinforce Boyonne and return to base claiming a minor victory but allowing Spanish to keep bombarding and slowly making the defence weaker. Which was what the French did at other end of the frontier. Or he can go full D'Artagnan and charge into the Spanish guns in effort to drive the bounders back over the frontier.

Only question here is are the French Cavalry up to the job? In theory all they need to do is hold on and defend the French flanks for long enough for the superior numbers of French foot and artillery to win the battle, hell many of the Spanish foot are not even proper line Infantry but light infantry skirmishers who will give way before Louis XIV finest. But if they do not hold and French flanks get turned ???? One French Cavalry Brigade about half the French have already fought a battle with Spanish horse and did not enjoy the experience.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:

The number of times you've invaded France, Stuart, and only now you complain about towns being on rivers?

I had to look it up, but Walata is in Mauritania - situated on a trans-Saharan trade route, West of Timbuktu.  The alternative spelling is Oualata.  I think the Shah has been quite clever developing his interest in this part of Africa.  While most players would have tried to conquer the Asante, the Shah has concentrated on the inland desert trade routes which will cut off the Asante's commercial lifeline (trans-Saharan trade) ... salt, gold, ivory, which should help him establish control of important trading products.

Wow so that means the Shah and his merry bunch of missionaries have won converts in Madagascar off the south west coast of Africa one month and the next they have almost reached the Atlantic and the north east coast.  They seem to be getting everywhere.........Africa, India, Ottoman Empire and central Asia is riddled with them.  Though oddly they have not showed up in China yet to compete with the Jesuits and probably suffer ritual humiliation and bits being cut off.

How have other players done with missionary work?

My version of Cardinal Portocarrero has printed lots of bibles including foreign language bibles and sent some missionaries to Africa but no reports on their progress at all...........hope they have not been eat.  Basically have enough trouble training Priests and building schools for the Spanish Empire to consider doing much of the same for others.  Though I did agree to fund Catholic schools for the Irish, Scots and English to help win these barbarians back for Holy Mother Church.

Can confirm that my single great effort at funding missionary work and spreading the counter reformation had ZERO influence on Spanish honour.  So its back to the tried and tested method of helping Spanish honour.......fighting to save the freedoms and liberty of the Princes of Europe from the dastardly frog.

If internal missionary work counts, then the conversion of England, Wales and Scotland is continuing, but it is slow progress.  I can confirm that a great deal of effort is required, not just with things like Catholic schools (which as Stuart points out he paid for as part of the latest peace settlement), but also building cathedrals, monasteries, seminaries, shrines, and training thousands of priests, dedicated missions, all over many years.  And checking on progress by religious surveys of the population.

Perhaps this is a special case given the peculiar religious history of England, etc, and the continued existence of the Church of England.  Overall though, progress is happening and if you count Ireland, my estimate of the Catholic population is now higher than those who claim to belong to the Church of England (so Catholics are the largest religious group now).  The curious thing, though is that dissenters have also grown.  It was reported that there were substantial numbers in the Church of England who considered themselves Catholic, but chose to remain within the Church of England in the hope it is eventually reunified with Rome.  Like I said, it is complicated.

I'm also committed to implementing religious change in a way which respects individual conscience, so it is not as simple as burning heretics - at least this means that there are far fewer negative results and social stability seems to be maintained.  Can I increase the number of Catholics any further using existing techniques?  I won't know until the next survey, but after 150 years of anti-Catholic propaganda and hysteria, it will take time to rebuild trust.

I suspect that had I put the same amount of effort in to converting natives from Animism or other primitive beliefs, it would have been much quicker and required much less effort.

From memory, I think the Shah had previously invested quite a bit in missionary activity in West Africa, so this is likely to be just one more town that has converted.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:

The number of times you've invaded France, Stuart, and only now you complain about towns being on rivers?

Ref Spanish invasions of France and rivers.  Can I just point out that the first time I invaded France vast majority of the French Army was already either involved in an invasion of the British Isles or fighting Charles Hapsburgs dear old Dad in the east so huge relief armies were not really an issue and sieges could be conducted without having to look over your shoulder all the time.

The second time I invaded France after they declared war on Austria, Spain and the UDP the second out treaty expired the French covering Army in the south engaged prior to the Siege and got smashed allowing Siege to be conducted without concern about relief forces.  After that the French Army tended to concentrate in massive strength on one front at a time.  So other fronts could conduct sieges without problems while the heavily engaged front retired rapidly if they were wise (no one is saying dear old Leopold was wise, brave yes, stupidly so?).

Also since the 1st and 2nd times the French have been adding horn works, crown works and every other type of fancy and expensive work extended work you care to name to their fortresses.  Not a great move for everyone since you then need much larger garrisons but provided this is done its going to greatly add to the length of a siege.  Which allows a much higher chance of a relief Army showing up before the place falls.

If all you are worried about is the garrison then unless its basically Army size then rivers and division of the attacking force is not really a problem.  Unless trying to take a really large city like London, Paris or Budapest in which case it may have to be taken in bits as defenders retire to north bank of say the Thames and blow the bridges.  Real bugger of trying to take cities split by a river is when a relief Army shows up or is likely too.

Too cut the whole city off from supplies etc you need to cover all the gates but to do this the besiegers are going to end up split by a river.  Which is standing invite to relief Army to attack one section of your siege lines and push said section of besiegers into a river.  Which was always my Ottoman plan for Belgrade but for some reason no one came near the place, clearly not fans of wild water swimming in the Danube.  

More minor French rivers not really a problem like the Danube esp in summer and easy enough for Cavalry to wade or swim and for foot to cross at fords.  But blowed if you want to cross artillery in a rush.

For players interested in the theory of how to protect their siege from outside interference, two main tactics both of which were used in the WSS period.  First and older tactic is to build very strong outward facing lines as well as the siege lines so any Army of relief is itself attacking a fortified position.  This however needs time and manpower to prepare as you are defending a much larger area than the inner siege works.

Other tactic is to have a "Army of observation" separate to the siege force standing ready to block and even give battle too the relief Army.  Or you can do a mixture perhaps only seeking to delay and weaken any relief force before it tries to break your siege.

Bayonne in G7 has seen a bit of a mixture in that very rapid advance of French Army from the north buggered Spanish plan to build strong defensive lines all around the place.  But Spanish delaying tactics and scouts were able to gain 7th Army enough time to move and face the threat.

French general now has interesting choice, he has sort of broken the siege and can re-supply and reinforce Bayonne and return to base claiming a minor victory but allowing Spanish to keep bombarding and slowly making the defence weaker.  Which was what the French did at other end of the frontier.  Or he can go full D'Artagnan and charge into the Spanish guns in effort to drive the bounders back over the frontier.

Only question here is are the French Cavalry up to the job?  In theory all they need to do is hold on and defend the French flanks for long enough for the superior numbers of French foot and artillery to win the battle, hell many of the Spanish foot are not even proper line Infantry but light infantry skirmishers who will give way before Louis XIV finest.  But if they do not hold and French flanks get turned ????  One French Cavalry Brigade about half the French have already fought a battle with Spanish horse and did not enjoy the experience.  

Doesn't the existence of the river make it easier for a siege force?  Surely they don't have to worry about being attacked by an approaching army from the north because the river is preventing that army crossing.  Therefore they don't need to build defensive lines to the rear and can make faster progress in the siege since they are doing less digging?

Since you have a covering force (which as you have pointed out did drive off the French cavalry, so will now be high morale), the French army only has 2 options: either enter the town to reinforce the garrison, or try to find another crossing over the river (which probably means a town).  If they enter the town they will be serving multiple purposes: boosting the morale of the garrison while also making it harder for you to win the siege.  Logically this would force you to abandon the siege and pull back otherwise the French would attack you from the town.  But would their frontal infantry assault succeed against your defensive positions and fancy artillery?  Possibly not if your cavalry drive them back.  So it is perhaps a question of judgement (and how confident you are in your troops) whether you stay and inflict as much damage on any French army that attacks you?  If instead, they try to find another crossing then that gives you the chance to finish the siege quickly; if they can't find that crossing (or it takes so long to bring their artillery up that they are fighting you without it?) then you could have taken the town before they reach you and then the situations are reversed.  The point I'm making is that I agree the river complicates matters, but it does so for both sides.

As things stand I think it is too close to call this one.  So it will be interesting what both parties choose to do.

Papa Clement wrote:

Doesn't the existence of the river make it easier for a siege force?  Surely they don't have to worry about being attacked by an approaching army from the north because the river is preventing that army crossing.  Therefore they don't need to build defensive lines to the rear and can make faster progress in the siege since they are doing less digging?

Since you have a covering force (which as you have pointed out did drive off the French cavalry, so will now be high morale), the French army only has 2 options: either enter the town to reinforce the garrison, or try to find another crossing over the river (which probably means a town).  If they enter the town they will be serving multiple purposes: boosting the morale of the garrison while also making it harder for you to win the siege.  Logically this would force you to abandon the siege and pull back otherwise the French would attack you from the town.  But would their frontal infantry assault succeed against your defensive positions and fancy artillery?  Possibly not if your cavalry drive them back.  So it is perhaps a question of judgement (and how confident you are in your troops) whether you stay and inflict as much damage on any French army that attacks you?  If instead, they try to find another crossing then that gives you the chance to finish the siege quickly; if they can't find that crossing (or it takes so long to bring their artillery up that they are fighting you without it?) then you could have taken the town before they reach you and then the situations are reversed.  The point I'm making is that I agree the river complicates matters, but it does so for both sides.

As things stand I think it is too close to call this one.  So it will be interesting what both parties choose to do.

Depending on the position of the city in relation to its river, size of river and the direction of approach of any relief force or attacking force for that matter rivers offer a mixed bag of disadvantages and some advantages to the besieger.

To take my beloved campaigns up and down the Danube for example:-

I) Major advantage is that the besieger can move his heavy artillery and supplies by water. Which greatly helps the speed of advance and makes re-supply of forces in the field a lot easier.

II) Major disadvantage of this is that unless you can get past the besieged city with either ships or establish artillery positions and chains etc to block the river. Then the defender can also use the river to supply and reinforce the besieged city.

My Rumelians used engineers plus a lot of pressed labour to build roads and wheeled frames so they could move small galleys round cities and cut them off up river and also built timber and earth field forts on both banks to do same job. They also had fleet of large galleys with 250 Marines equiped with grenadoes and blunderbus and really sharp swords for close combat as found in streets and breaches ready to help reinforce an attacked city. In French campaigns with some exceptions like the Rhine this is not such an issue as most rivers do not take anything larger than a barge and are easily blocked by a battery of field guns. Mostly this type of supply-resupply issue only effects the coastal port cities.

III) Like Paris and London some Danube cities are on both banks of the river. Generally speaking this is a pain to the attackers as defenders of say Pest have option to blow the bridges and move into Buda meaning that you effectively have to conduct two sieges at once split by the Danube or besiege one half of the city at a time. In case of Paris, Belgrade and Beyonne call that three because Paris and Belgrade have islands in the middle of the river with the Isle du City in Paris including many key locations while Beyonne is built round the junction of two rivers which split it into three.

IV) On the plus side and depending on position of city and direction of advance of any relief force a besieger can use river lines to shelter behind if a major relief force shows up. This is what the Spanish have recently done at Perpignan which is on the south side of the Tet, so apart from throwing some supplies and perhaps some reinforcements into the city via bridges to the north. The French commander decided against crossing a rather cold (mountain melt water) river and fighting a battle with said river at his back........Shame. If siege has been other way around any French siege of Perpignan either has to attack across the Tet or cross the river and attack from south which means its likely to be trapped against river by a relief force from South. A major reason why King Charles wants the capital city of his Kingdom of Majorica back!

Vienna being mostly on West Bank of the Danube apart from one fairly small suburb is also a pain for Ottomans as any relief is going to trap you against the Danube. But its location is not such a problem for say French attackers from the West.

If you ask me think the Poles in G7 missed major opportunity at Warsaw when their relief army attacked from south and just pushed Prussia siege away. I think a commander who bothered to look at a map would have approached from the west to put his forces across routes from Berlin and tried to drive the Prussians into the Vistula.

Final word probably need to be said about sieges and water in the low countries esp the UDP. The sensitive reader will probably decide that he really, really does not want to conduct any sieges in the UDP which seems to have more rivers and water features than actual land and is a whole topic on its own.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Depending on the position of the city in relation to its river, size of river and the direction of approach of any relief force or attacking force for that matter rivers offer a mixed bag of disadvantages and some advantages to the besieger.

To take my beloved campaigns up and down the Danube for example:-

I) Major advantage is that the besieger can move his heavy artillery and supplies by water.  Which greatly helps the speed of advance and makes re-supply of forces in the field a lot easier.

II) Major disadvantage of this is that unless you can get past the besieged city with either ships or establish artillery positions and chains etc to block the river.  Then the defender can also use the river to supply and reinforce the besieged city.

My Rumelians used engineers plus a lot of pressed labour to build roads and wheeled frames so they could move small galleys round cities and cut them off up river and also built timber and earth field forts on both banks to do same job.  They also had fleet of large galleys with 250 Marines equipped with grenadoes and blunderbus and really sharp swords for close combat as found in streets and breaches ready to help reinforce an attacked city.  In French campaigns with some exceptions like the Rhine this is not such an issue as most rivers do not take anything larger than a barge and are easily blocked by a battery of field guns.  Mostly this type of supply-resupply issue only effects the coastal port cities.

III) Like Paris and London some Danube cities are on both banks of the river.  Generally speaking this is a pain to the attackers as defenders of say Pest have option to blow the bridges and move into Buda meaning that you effectively have to conduct two sieges at once split by the Danube or besiege one half of the city at a time.  In case of Paris, Belgrade and Bayonne call that three because Paris and Belgrade have islands in the middle of the river with the Isle du City in Paris including many key locations while Bayonne is built round the junction of two rivers which split it into three.

IV) On the plus side and depending on position of city and direction of advance of any relief force a besieger can use river lines to shelter behind if a major relief force shows up.  This is what the Spanish have recently done at Perpignan which is on the south side of the Tet, so apart from throwing some supplies and perhaps some reinforcements into the city via bridges to the north.  The French commander decided against crossing a rather cold (mountain melt water) river and fighting a battle with said river at his back........Shame.  If siege has been other way around any French siege of Perpignan either has to attack across the Tet or cross the river and attack from south which means its likely to be trapped against river by a relief force from South.  A major reason why King Charles wants the capital city of his Kingdom of Majorica back!

Vienna being mostly on West Bank of the Danube apart from one fairly small suburb is also a pain for Ottomans as any relief is going to trap you against the Danube.  But its location is not such a problem for say French attackers from the West.

Very interesting, thanks Stuart.  I guess your Rumelians could get away with doing things that ordinary European armies couldn't, to keep momentum in sieges.  

For towns with rivers through them it is a shame your mortars can't just target the bridges since the loss of the river crossing would cause the defenders many problems, especially if their granary, magazine or reinforcements were then unable to cross the bridge to support the defenders near your breach.  I suppose most towns would have multiple river crossings within their borders, so perhaps that is why we don't hear in the newspaper of bridges being destroyed by mortar fire?

Stuart Bailey wrote:
If you ask me think the Poles in G7 missed major opportunity at Warsaw when their relief army attacked from south and just pushed Prussia siege away. I think a commander who bothered to look at a map would have approached from the west to put his forces across routes from Berlin and tried to drive the Prussians into the Vistula.

I was a bit surprised by the Polish army as well, although to be fair to them, if my forces hadn't been trapped in the ice at Danzig, the idea was that they would have come down from Danzig, cutting Prussian supply lines and indeed attacked from the west.  The Poles could then have attacked from the south or east and the Prussians would have been trapped.  I wasn't prepared to march an army through Poland in deep snow, so had to wait until the start of the campaigning season, by which time the Prussians had melted away, realising their hopeless position and achieved a generous peace.

The Austrians face a similar strategic threat in Krakov - they have pushed out far too far and are very exposed.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Final word probably need to be said about sieges and water in the low countries esp the UDP.  The sensitive reader will probably decide that he really, really does not want to conduct any sieges in the UDP which seems to have more rivers and water features than actual land and is a whole topic on its own.

I think the same applies to most of Flanders where whenever you start to dig, the trench fills with water and your troops are stuck in mud.  UDP/Flanders is a very tricky environment to fight in, which could be why France has bypassed it and gone for Lorraine?

Papa Clement wrote:
Very interesting, thanks Stuart.  I guess your Rumelians could get away with doing things that ordinary European armies couldn't, to keep momentum in sieges.  

For towns with rivers through them it is a shame your mortars can't just target the bridges since the loss of the river crossing would cause the defenders many problems, especially if their granary, magazine or reinforcements were then unable to cross the bridge to support the defenders near your breach.  I suppose most towns would have multiple river crossings within their borders, so perhaps that is why we don't hear in the newspaper of bridges being destroyed by mortar fire?

I think the same applies to most of Flanders where whenever you start to dig, the trench fills with water and your troops are stuck in mud.  UDP/Flanders is a very tricky environment to fight in, which could be why France has bypassed it and gone for Lorraine?

Well my Rumelians did try out the "Turkish Terror" tactics which a set of Agema rules said would lower the morale of defenders. So we chopped off a load of POWs heads and fired them into the Town. Net result was the defence became fanatical and we gave ourselves plague!!

Other than that our siege tactics were fairly standard. Perhaps more cavalry blockades than formal sieges and a fondness for laying waste to all possible routes of relief forces in a way which would send standard European forces honour sharply downwards (even though Louis XIV did much the same in Germany, John Churchill the same in Bavaria and the Swedes and Russians were also infamous for plundering).

Hitting a fairly small low down target like a bridge blind would be pure luck. Also I suspect if you did land a bomb on something like the Charles Bridge all you would do would be blow a hole in a span. Great danger is fire. smoke hurting food and powder supplies. Plus human losses when you have a lot of troops static in a fairly small area.

Possible that French experience in their G7 siege of Amsterdam when first their trenches and then their whole camp flooded has put the current French Government off the whole of the low countries as an area to campaign in. That and thinking Spanish 2nd and 3rd Armiesres defending Flanders might put up more of of fight than the Army of Lorraine which seems to have vanished into the mists of the Rhineland. Probably reading Russian maps?

Assume French invasion of Lorraine is an attempt to split Austrians/Bavarians on the Lower Rhine from the Spanish and Prussians on the upper Rhine and Flanders. Looks fine on a map but I do wonder what attacking your own niece and harmless Catholic states does too your honour score. If Spain did that type of thing I bet the Pope would say something nasty and really cutting.

Savoy was bad enough but Lorraine seemingly folding without a shot fired is down right depressing. If I have to balance pressing a siege against the danger posed by possible relief forces why are the French not suffering in the same way?